Very well made but by what I can see here I would have to say no, it's a repro. Very nicely done as most are these days. The problem is the artist strives to hard for perfection...now I could be wrong and it's a perfect mint example with no RZM tag and no age whatsoever.
I have an issue when I do not see exposed cardboard or even slight oxidizing or exposed yellowed threads. So yes it is a tough call but these days I would only settle for the nicely aged examples .
I agree with the others ....
But my gut feeling is this a one off a very good repro.
Its in mint condition and to sparkly for me even with 60 years of touching a lone would leave it's mark .... Yes a touch call indeed
Regards
David
When it is too hard to say then why make the call ??? .
Some of these you just have to have in hand these days, there is simply no other way. One can not make a final conclusion based on a computer images alone.
Here is a battle worn example along the lines that John says he likes to compare with. Same maker or not ?
Very well made but by what I can see here I would have to say no, it's a repro. Very nicely done as most are these days. The problem is the artist strives to hard for perfection...now I could be wrong and it's a perfect mint example with no RZM tag and no age whatsoever.
Chriss,
I wouldnt say your two eagles are made by the same maker as the eagle that started this thread, as there are very distinct differences in the manufacturing of your eagles compared to the other eagle.
As example, your inner wing feathers are two strands of bullion side-by-side where as on the eagle that started this thread the inner wing feathers are defined by black thread crossing over multiple strands of bullion to give the same effect.
I can't and won't comment as to the originality of the eagle that started this thread, I only can say that the eagles Chris posted are different in manufacturing technique to it.
Comment